Climatic Change

, Volume 104, Issue 1, pp 169–197 | Cite as

Multilevel risk governance and urban adaptation policy

  • Jan Corfee-MorlotEmail author
  • Ian Cochran
  • Stéphane Hallegatte
  • Pierre-Jonathan Teasdale


Despite a flurry of activity in cities on climate change and growing interest in the research community, climate policy at city-scale remains fragmented and basic tools to facilitate good decision-making are lacking. This paper draws on an interdisciplinary literature review to establish a multilevel risk governance conceptual framework. It situates the local adaptation policy challenge and action within this to explore a range of institutional questions associated with strengthening local adaptation and related functions of local government. It highlights the value of institutional design to include analytic-deliberative practice, focusing on one possible key tool to support local decision-making—that of boundary organizations to facilitate local science-policy assessment. After exploring a number of examples of boundary organisations in place today, the authors conclude that a number of institutional models are valid. A common feature across the different approaches is the establishment of a science-policy competence through active deliberation and shared analysis engaging experts and decision-makers in an iterative exchange of information. Important features that vary include the geographic scope of operation and the origin of funding, the level and form of engagement of different actors, and the relationship with “producers” of scientific information. National and sub-national (regional) governments may play a key role to provide financial and technical assistance to support the creation of such boundary organizations with an explicit mandate to operate at local levels; in turn, in a number of instances boundary organizations have been shown to be able to facilitate local partnerships, engagement and decision-making on adaptation. While the agenda for multi-level governance of climate change is inevitably much broader than this, first steps by national governments to work with sub-national governments, urban authorities and other stakeholders to advance capacity in this area could be an important step for local adaptation policy agenda.


Climate Change Climate Change Impact Climate Policy Boundary Organization Adaptation Policy 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Aall C, Groven K, Lindseth G (2007) The scope of action for local climate policy: the case of Norway. Glob Environ Polit 7(2):83–101Google Scholar
  2. Adger WN, Agrawala S, Mirza MMQ, Conde C, O’Brien K, Pulhin J, Pulwarty R, Smit B, Takahashi K (2007) Assessment of adaptation practices, options, constraints and capacity. In: Parry ML et al (eds) Climate change 2007: impacts, adaptation and vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  3. Adger WN, O’Brien KL, Lorenzoni I (2009) Adaptation now. In: Adger WN et al (ed) Living with climate change: are there limits to adaptation? Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 1–22Google Scholar
  4. Agrawala S (1998) Structural and process history of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Clim Change 39:621–642Google Scholar
  5. APREC (2008) ViTeCC: villes, territories et changement climatique. Choix et gestion des infrastructures. Accessed 20 October 2008
  6. Benton T, Redclift M (1994) Introduction. In: Redclift M, Benton T (ed) Social theory and the global environment. Routledge, LondonGoogle Scholar
  7. Betsill M (2001) Mitigating climate change in US cities: opportunities and obstacles. Local Environ 6(4):393–406Google Scholar
  8. Betsill MM, Bulkeley H (2004) Transnational networks and global environmental governance: the cities for climate protection programme. Int Stud Q 48:471–493Google Scholar
  9. Betsill M, Bulkeley H (2007) Looking back and thinking ahead: a decade of cities and climate change research. Local Environ 12(5):447–456Google Scholar
  10. Bhagat RB, Guha M, Chattopadhyay A (2006) Mumbai after 26/7 deluge: issues and concerns in urban planning. Popul Environ 27(4):337–349Google Scholar
  11. Bohman J (1996) Public deliberation: pluralism, complexity, and democracy. MIT, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  12. Bramwell A (1989) Ecology in the twentieth century: an introduction. Yale University Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
  13. Brown W, Jacobson HK (1998) Engaging countries: strengthening compliance with international environmental accords. MIT, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  14. Brulle R (2000) Agency, democracy and nature. MIT, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  15. Brunner R (1996) Policy and global change research: a modest proposal. Clim Change 32:121–147Google Scholar
  16. Brunner R, Steelman T, Coe-Juell L, Cromley C, Edwards C, Tucker D, Ronald D (2005) Adaptive governance: integrating science, policy, and decision-making. Columbia University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  17. Bulkeley H, Betsill M (2005) Rethinking sustainable cities: multilevel governance and the ’urban’ politics of climate change. Env Polit 14(1):42–63Google Scholar
  18. Bulkeley H, Kern K (2006) Local government and the governing of climate change in Germany and the UK. Urban Stud 43:2237–2259Google Scholar
  19. Bulkeley H, Moser S (2007) Responding to climate change: governance and social action beyond Kyoto. Glob Environ Polit 7(2):1–10Google Scholar
  20. Bulkeley H, Schroeder H (2008) Governing climate change post-2012: the role of global cities. Tyndall Center for Climate Change Research, LondonGoogle Scholar
  21. Bulkeley H et al (2009) Cities and climate change: the role of institutions, governance and urban planning. Presented at the world bank urban symposium on climate change, Marseille, 28–30 June 2009Google Scholar
  22. Burton I, Bizikova L, Dickinson T, Howard Y (2007) Integrating adaptation into policy: upscaling evidence from local to global. Climate Policy 7:371–76Google Scholar
  23. Carmin J, Roberts D, Anguelovski I (2009) Planning climate resilient cities: early lessons from early adapters. Presented at the world bank urban research symposium on climate change, Marseille, 28–30 June 2009Google Scholar
  24. Carpenter C (2001) Businesses, green groups and the media: the role of non-governmental organizations in the climate change debate. Int Aff 77:313–328Google Scholar
  25. Carraro C (2003) Governing the global environment. Edward Elgar, CheltenhamGoogle Scholar
  26. Carvalho A, Burgess J (2005) Cultural circuits of climate change in the UK Broadsheet press, 1985–2003. Risk Anal 25(6):1457–1470Google Scholar
  27. Cash D, Moser S (2000) Linking global and local scales: designing dynamic assessment and management processes. Glob Environ Change 10(2):109–120Google Scholar
  28. Cash DW, Clark WC, Alcock F, Dickson NM, Eckley N, Guston DH, Jaeger J, Mitchell RB (2003) Knowledge systems for sustainable development. PNAS 100(14):8086–8091Google Scholar
  29. Cash DW, Adger WN, Berkes F, Garden P, Lebel L, Olsson P, Pritchard L, Young O (2006) Scale and cross-scale dynamics: governance and information in a multilevel world. Ecology and Society 11(2):8Google Scholar
  30. CDC (2008) Finance carbone: Mission Climat. Accessed 20 October 2008
  31. Clark WC, Majone G (1985) The critical appraisal of scientific inquiries with policy implications. Sci Technol Human Values 10(3):6Google Scholar
  32. Corfee-Morlot J (2009) California in the greenhouse: regional climate change policies and the global environment. PhD dissertation, Geography Department, University College London, LondonGoogle Scholar
  33. Corfee-Morlot J, Agrawala S (2004) The benefits of climate policy—editorial. Glob Environ Change 14:197–199Google Scholar
  34. Corfee-Morlot J, Maslin M, Burgess J (2007) Global warming in the public sphere. Philos Trans R Soc Ser A 365:2741–2776Google Scholar
  35. Corfee-Morlot J, Kamal-Chaoui L, Donovan M, Cochran I, Robert A, Teasdale PJ (2009) Cities, climate change and multi-level governance. OECD Environmental Working Papers OECD, ParisGoogle Scholar
  36. DeAngelo BJ, Harvey LDD (1998) The jurisdictional framework for municipal action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions: case studies from Canada, the USA and Germany. Local Environ: The International Journal of Justice and Sustainability 3(2):111–136Google Scholar
  37. De Marchi B (2003) Public participation and risk governance. Sci Public Policy 30(3):171–176Google Scholar
  38. Dietz T (2003) The Darwinian trope in the drama of the commons: variations on some themes by the Ostroms. Paper prepared for the academic conference in honor of the work of Elinor and Vincent Ostrom. George Mason University, ArlingtonGoogle Scholar
  39. Dietz T, Ostrom E, Stern PC (2003) The struggle to govern the commons. Science 302:1907–1912Google Scholar
  40. Falkner R (2003) Private environmental governance and international relations: exploring the links. Glob Environ Polit 3(2):72–87Google Scholar
  41. Fankhauser S, Agrawala S, Hanrahan D, Pope G, Skees J, Stephens C, Yasmine S (2008) Economic and policy instruments to promote adaptation in economic aspects of adaptation to climate change. OECD, ParisGoogle Scholar
  42. Fisher DR (2004) National governance and the global climate change regime. Rowman and Littlefield Publishers, Inc, LanhamGoogle Scholar
  43. Fisher BS, Nakicenovic N, Alfsen K, Corfee-Morlot J, de la Chesnaye F, Hourcade J-C, Jiang K, Kainuma M, La Rovere E, Rana A, Matysek A, Riahi K, Richels R, Rose S, van Vuuren D, Warren R (2007) Issues related to mitigation in the long-term context. In: Metz B et al (eds) Climate change 2007: mitigation. Contribution of working group III to the fourth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge and New YorkGoogle Scholar
  44. Folke C, Hahn T, Olsson P, Norberg J (2005) Adaptive governance of social-ecological systems. Annu Rev Environ Resources 30:441–473Google Scholar
  45. Funtowicz S, Ravetz J (1993) Science for a post-normal age. Futures 25(7):739–755Google Scholar
  46. Gieryn T (1983) Boundary-work and the demarcation of science from non-science: strains and interests in professional ideologies of scientists. Am Sociol Rev 48(6):781Google Scholar
  47. Gough C, Shackley S (2001) The respectable politics of climate change: the epistemic communities and NGOS. Int Aff 77(2):329–346Google Scholar
  48. Grindle M, Thomas J (1991) Public choices and policy change: the political economy of reform in developing countries. Johns Hopkins University Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
  49. Gupta S et al (2007) Policies, instruments and co-operative arrangements. In: Metz B et al (eds) Climate change 2007: mitigation. Contribution of working group III to the fourth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  50. Guston D (2001) Boundary organizations in environmental policy and science: an introduction. Sci Technol Human Values 26(4):399–408Google Scholar
  51. Haas P (1990) Saving the Mediterranean: the politics of international environmental cooperation. Columbia University Press, New York CityGoogle Scholar
  52. Habermas J (1998) Between facts and norms: contributions to a discourse theory of law and democracy. MIT, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  53. Hajer M, Wagenaar H (eds) (2003) Deliberative policy analysis: understanding governance in the network society. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  54. Hall P (1993) Policy paradigms, social learning and the state: the case of economic policymaking in Britain. Comp Polit 25(3):275–296Google Scholar
  55. Hall N, Taplin R (2006) Confronting climate change: a review of theoretical perspectives on environmental NGOs and their campaign effectiveness. Griffith Journal of the Environment 2:1Google Scholar
  56. Hardin G (1968) The tragedy of the commons. Science 162:1243–48Google Scholar
  57. Harris P (2001) Assessing climate change: international co-operation and predictions of environmental change. Politics 21(1):11–22Google Scholar
  58. Hart D, Victor D (1993) Scientific elites and the making of US policy for climate change research, 1957–74. Soc Stud Sci 23(4):643–680Google Scholar
  59. Healy P (1997) Collaborative planning: shaping places in fragmented societies. Macmillan, LondonGoogle Scholar
  60. Herrick C (2004) Objectivity versus narrative coherence: science, environmental policy, and the U.S. Data Quality Act. Environ Sci Policy 7:419–433Google Scholar
  61. Hooghe L, Marks G (2003) Unravelling the central state, but how? Types of multi-level governance. Am Polit Sci Rev 97(2):233–243Google Scholar
  62. IEA (2008) World energy outlook 2008. International Energy Agency (IEA), ParisGoogle Scholar
  63. IPCC (1996) Intergovernmental panel on climate change, second assessment report. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  64. IPCC (2007) Summary for policymakers. In Climate change 2007: synthesis report. Fourth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  65. Jasanoff S (1990) The fifth branch: science advisers as policymakers. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  66. Kamal-Chaoui L, Robert A (eds) (2009) Competitive cities and climate change. OECD, ParisGoogle Scholar
  67. Kirshen P, Ruth M, Anderson W (2008) Interdependencies of urban climate change impacts and adaptation strategies: a case study of Metropolitan Boston USA. Clim Change 86:105–122Google Scholar
  68. Krimsky S (1992) The role of theory in risk studies. In: Krimsky S, Golding D (eds) Social theories of risk (pp 3–22). Praeger, WestportGoogle Scholar
  69. Kwa C (2001) The rise and fall of weather modification: changes in american attitudes toward technology, nature, and society. In: Miller CA, Edwards PN (eds) Changing the atmosphere: expert knowledge and environmental governance. MIT, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  70. Layzer J (2006) The environmental case: translating values into policy, 2nd edn. CQ, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  71. Leiserowitz A (2005) American risk perceptions: is climate change dangerous. Risk Anal 25(6):1433–1442Google Scholar
  72. Leiserowitz A (2006) Climate change risk perception and policy preferences: the role of affect, imagery and values. Clim Change 77(1–2):45–72Google Scholar
  73. Levy D, Newell P (eds) (2005) The business of global environmental governance. MIT, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  74. Lindseth G (2004) The cities for climate protection campaign (CCPC) and the framing of local climate policy. Local Environ 9:325–336Google Scholar
  75. Logan JR (2006) The impact of Katrina: race and class in storm-damaged neighborhoods, Hurricane Katrina project. In: Initiative on spatial structures in the social sciences. Brown University, ProvidenceGoogle Scholar
  76. London Climate Change Partnership (LCCP) (2002) London’s warming. Greater London Authority, London. Accessed 12 May 2010
  77. London Climate Change Partnership (LCCP) (2005) Adapting to climate change: a checklist for development. Guidance on designing developments in a changing climate. Greater London Authority, LondonGoogle Scholar
  78. London Climate Change Partnership (LCCP) (2007) Adapting to climate change: a case study companion to the checklist for development. Greater London Authority. Accessed 12 May 2010
  79. Lorenzoni I, Jordan A, Hulme M, Turner RK, O’Riordan T (2000) A co-evolutionary approach to climate change impact assessment: Part 1, Integrating socio-economic and climate change scenarios. Glob Environ Change 10:57–68Google Scholar
  80. Lowe A, Foster J, Winkelman S (2009) Asking the climate question: lessons learned in effective adaptation from urban leaders partners. Center for Clean Air Policy, Washington. June. Accessed 23 May 2010
  81. March J, Olsen JP (1984) The new institutionalism: organizational factors in political life. Am Polit Sci Rev 78(3):734–749Google Scholar
  82. Mathew RA (2007) Climate change and human security. In: DiMento JFC, Doughman P (eds) Climate change: what it mean for us, our children, and our grandchildren. MIT, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  83. Mazur A, Lee J (1993) Sounding the global alarm: environmental issues in the US National News. Soc Stud Sci 23(4):681–720Google Scholar
  84. McKenzie Hedger M, Connell R, Bramwell P (2006) Bridging the gap: empowering decision-making for adaptation through the UK Climate Impacts Programmeme. Climate Policy 6:201–215Google Scholar
  85. Miller C, Edwards P (eds) (2001) Changing the atmosphere: expert knowledge and environmental governance. MIT, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  86. Mitchell RB, Clark WC, Cash DW, Dickson N (eds) (2006) Global environmental assessments: information, institutions, and influence. MIT, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  87. Moser SC (2006a) Talk of the city: engaging urbanites on climate change. Institute for the Study of Society and Environment, BoulderGoogle Scholar
  88. Moser SC (2006b) Climate change and sea-level rise in Maine and Hawai’i: the changing tides of an issue domain. In: Mitchell RB, Clark WC, Cash DW, Dickson N (eds) Global environmental assessments: information, institutions, and influence (pp 201–239). MIT Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  89. Moser S (2006) Talk of the city: engaging urbanites on climate change. Institute for the Study of Society and Environment, BoulderGoogle Scholar
  90. Moser SC (2009a) Whether our levers are long enough and the Fulcrum Strong?—Exploring the soft underbelly of adaptation decisions and actions. In: Adger WN et al (eds) Living with climate change: are there limits to adaptation? Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 313–343Google Scholar
  91. Moser SC (2009b) Good morning, America! The explosive US awakening to the need for adaptation. California Energy Commission and NOAA-Coastal Services Center, Sacramento. Available at:
  92. Moser S, Dilling L (eds) (2006) Creating a climate for change: communicating climate change and facilitating social change. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  93. Moser SC, Tribbia J (2006) Vulnerability to inundation and climate change impacts in California: Coastal managers’ attitudes and perceptions. Mar Technol Soci J 40(4):35–44Google Scholar
  94. National Research Council (2007) Analysis of global change assessments: lessons learned. National Academies, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  95. National Research Council (2008) Public participation in environmental assessment and decision making. National Academies, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  96. National Research Council (2009) Informing decisions in a changing climate. National Academies, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  97. Newell P (2000) Climate for change: non-state actors and the global politics of the greenhouse. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  98. NYC (New York City Mayor’s Office of Long Term Planning and Sustainability) (2007) PlaNYC: a greener, greater New York. City of New York, New York City. Accessed 20 May 2010
  99. NYC (2010) PlaNYC Progress Report 2010. New York City. Accessed 20 May 2010, pp 79
  100. OECD (2009) OECD policy guidance on integrating climate adaptation into development cooperation. Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, ParisGoogle Scholar
  101. OECD (2010) Mumbai, climate change and future flood risk: exposure, economic losses and adaptation options. Environment Working Paper. Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, ParisGoogle Scholar
  102. Olson M (1965) The logic of collective action: public goods and the theory of groups. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  103. O’Riordan T, Jordan A (1999) Institutions, climate change and cultural theory: towards a common analytical framework. Glob Environ Change 9(2):81–93Google Scholar
  104. Ostrom E (1990) Governing the commons: the evolution of institutions for collective action. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  105. Ostrom E (2000) Collective actions and the evolution of norms. J Econ Perspect 14(3):137–158Google Scholar
  106. Ostrom E (2009) A polycentric approach for coping with climate change. Background paper for the WDR 2010Google Scholar
  107. Ostrom E, Dietz T, Dolsak N, Stern PC, Stonich S, Weber E (eds) (2002) The drama of the commons. National Academy Press, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  108. Ouranos (2008) Consortium on regional climatology and adaptation to climate change. Accessed 15 May 2010
  109. Ouranos (2010) Ouranos in short and mission. Accessed 15 May 2010
  110. Paterson M (2008) Global governance for sustainable capitalism: political economy and environmental governance. In: Adger NW, Jordon A (eds) Governing sustainability. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  111. Pelling M (2006) Adaptation and disaster management: scales issues, workshop background note. In: McKenzie Hedger M, Corfee-Morlot J (eds) Adaptation to climate change: what needs to happen next? Report of a Workshop in the UK EU Presidency. UK Environment Agency and DEFRA, LondonGoogle Scholar
  112. Pielke RA Jr (2006) Misdefining ‘climate change’: consequences for science and action. Environ Sci Policy 8:548–561Google Scholar
  113. Qi Y, Ma L, Zhang H, Li H (2008) Translating a global issue into local priority: China’s local government response to climate change. J Environ Dev 17:379–400Google Scholar
  114. Rabe B (2004) Statehouse and greenhouse: the emerging politics of American climate change policy. Brookings Institution, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  115. Rayner S, Malone EL (eds) (1998) Human choice and climate change: what have we learned? vol 4. Batelle Memorial InstituteGoogle Scholar
  116. Renn O (2001) The role of social science in environmental policy making: experiences and outlook. Sci Public Policy 28(6):427–437Google Scholar
  117. Renn O (2008) Risk governance: coping with uncertainty in a complex world. Earthscan, LondonGoogle Scholar
  118. Rosenzweig C, Major DC, Demong K, Stanton C, Horton R, Stults M (2007) Managing climate change risks in New York City’s water system: assessment and adaptation planning. Mitig Adapt Strategies Glob Chang 12(8):1391–1409Google Scholar
  119. Rydin Y (2003) Conflict, consensus, and rationality in environmental planning: an institutional discourse approach. In: Clark G, Goudi A, Peach C (eds) Oxford geographical and environmental studies. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  120. Sathaye J et al (2007) Sustainable development and mitigation. In: Metz B et al (eds) Climate change 2007: mitigation. Contribution of working group III to the fourth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  121. Satterthwaite D (2008) Cities’ contribution to global warming: notes on the allocation of greenhouse gas emissions. Environ Urban 20(2):539Google Scholar
  122. Satterthwaite D, Huq S, Reid H, Pellin M, Romero Lankao P (2009) Introduction. In: Bicknell J, Dodman D, Satterthwaite D (eds) Adapting cities to climate change: understanding and addressing the development challenges. Earthscan, LondonGoogle Scholar
  123. Schellnhuber HJ, Crutzen PJ, Clark WC, Claussen M, Held H (eds) (2004) Earth system analysis for sustainability. MIT, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  124. Schreurs MA (2008) From the bottom up. Local and subnational climate change politics. J Environ Dev 17:343–355Google Scholar
  125. Schipper L, Pelling M (2006) Disaster risk, climate change and international development: scope for, and challenges to, integration. Disasters 30(1):19–38Google Scholar
  126. Shackley S, Deanwood R (2002) Stakeholder perceptions of climate change impacts at the regional scale: implications for the effectiveness of regional and local responses. J Environ Plan Manag 45(3):381–402Google Scholar
  127. Shimoda Y (2003) Adaptation measures for climate change and the urban heat island in Japan’s built environment. Building Research and Information Journal 31(3–4):222–230Google Scholar
  128. Sippel M, Jenssen T (2009) What about local climate governance? A review of promise and problems. MPRA Working PaperGoogle Scholar
  129. Social Learning Group (SLG) (ed) (2001) Learning to manage global environmental risks: a comparative history of climate change, ozone depletion and acid precipitation, 2 vols. MIT, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  130. Solecki WD, Rosenzweig C, Parshall L, Pope G, Clark M, Cox J et al (2005) Mitigation of the heat island effect in urban New Jersey. Global Environmental Change Part B: Environ Hazards 6(1):39–49Google Scholar
  131. Stavins R (1997) Policy instruments for climate change: how can national governments address a global problem? University of Chicago legal forum: rethinking environmental protection for the 21st century, pp 293–329Google Scholar
  132. Stern PC, Fineberg HV (eds) (1996) Understanding risk: informing decisions in a democratic society. National Academies, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  133. Sugiyama N, Takeuchi T (2008) Local policies for climate change in Japan. J Environ Dev 17:424–441Google Scholar
  134. Tversky A, Kahneman D (1973) Availability: a heuristic for judging frequency and probability. Cogn Psychol 5:207–232Google Scholar
  135. UK Climate Impacts Programme (UKCIP) (2001) Socio-economic scenarios for climate impact assessment: a guide to their use in the UK climate impacts programme. UKCIP, Oxford, p 127Google Scholar
  136. UK Climate Impacts Programme (UKCIP) (2005) Programme: UKCIP 2005–2010. Accessed 17 October 2008
  137. UK Climate Impacts Programme (UKCIP) (2008) About UKCIP. Accessed 17 October 2008
  138. UN International Strategy for Disaster Reduction (UNISDR) (2008) Links between disaster risk reduction, development and climate change. Report prepared for the Commission on Climate Change and Development, SwedenGoogle Scholar
  139. UNFCCC (2006) Synthesis of reports demonstrating progress in accordance with Article 3, paragraph 2, of the Kyoto Protocol. Note by the secretariat. In FCCC/SBI/2006/INF.2. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, BonnGoogle Scholar
  140. Urwin K, Jordan A (2008) Does public policy support or undermine climate change adaptation? Exploring policy interplay across different scales of governance. Glob Environ Change 18(1):180–191Google Scholar
  141. US National Assessment Synthesis Team (USNAST) (2001) Climate change impacts on the United States: the potential consequences of climate variability and change. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  142. Vescovi et al (2007) Climate change science knowledge transfer in support of vulnerability, impacts and adaptation activities on a North American regional scale: Ouranos as a case study. IPCC Regional Expert Meeting: Meeting Report papersGoogle Scholar
  143. Vogel C, Moser SC, Kasperson RE, Dabelko G (2007) Linking vulnerability, adaptation, and resilience science to practice: pathways, players, and partnerships. Glob Environ Change 17:349–364Google Scholar
  144. Wilbanks TJ, Romero Lankao P, Bao M, Berkhout F, Cairncross S, Ceron J-P, Kapshe M, Muir-Wood R, Zapata-Marti R (2007) Industry, settlement and society. Climate change 2007: impacts, adaptation and vulnerability. Contribution of working group II to the fourth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  145. Wynne B (2002) Risk and environment as legitimatory discourses of technology: reflexivity inside out? Curr Sociol 50(3):459–477Google Scholar
  146. Yearley S (1994) Social movements and environmental change. In: Redclift M, Benton T (eds) Social theory and the global environment. Routledge, LondonGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jan Corfee-Morlot
    • 1
    Email author
  • Ian Cochran
    • 2
  • Stéphane Hallegatte
    • 3
  • Pierre-Jonathan Teasdale
    • 1
  1. 1.Organization for Economic Co-operation and DevelopmentParisFrance
  2. 2.CERNA—Mines ParisTech./CDC Climat RechercheParisFrance
  3. 3.Center International de Recherche sur l’Environnement et le Développement and École Nationale de la MétéorologieParisFrance

Personalised recommendations